Yes! That's immediately what I thought of when I read the headline. Though TFA and that book disagree a little on what constitutes authoritarianism. TFA seems to think that the Tea Party is anti-authoritarian, when they're really just anti-Democratic Party authority and would probably be more than happy with right-wing authoritarianism (in both the political and in the sense used in the book).

I'm also currently reading The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo, who has a lot to say about undue submission to authority being a key component in allowing otherwise good people to do evil things.

My HS biology teacher had a very interesting (and somewhat subversive) quote at the front of the classroom: "Always question authority, but respect it."

Just because a leader tells me something does not mean that I should follow it without question. We've had some very horrific things happen within our lifetimes because of people's reluctance to question their leaders.

FTA:"We have to relearn the art of following,"

I know the meaning that the original author of that statement meant, but it can also be turned upside down. We do need to relearn how to follow. We need to learn how to stand behind the right sort of leader. Many of the leaders in our corporate world are narcissists or sociopaths. Our representatives in government often aren't much better. Those sorts of people shouldn't be followed. So we as a people need to reform the way these people become leaders, as well as changing the culture and image of what it means to be a leader.

The author of this is all over the farking place. He's formulating opinions based on assumed opinions by asking himself questions.

Sir, you are not a philosopher or great diviner of truth. Drink 4 shots of bourbon and four beers. Wait 30 minutes. Write this article over from scratch. I'll bet it's more like what you really meant to say.

It depends on what constitutes authority. Being anti-government doesn't make you anti-authoritarian, as many libertarians and Republicans have shown. It just means you serve a different authority. One that may tend to be a little more selfish. I don't consider that part of the All-American Individualistic Streak. It's just being an asshole.

I'm strongly anti-authoritarian, but I also believe government has a time and a place. It is a matter of balance. I choose to live and work within a society, and there is more than just my own interests at stake. I have zero issue with taxes going to help the society as a whole. According to the guys at Reason, that makes me a commie or something. So be it. In their system, you'd still have masters, but no accountability (though we're bad at using that as it is).

Salt Lick Steady:A Dark Evil Omen: Please, Americans are terminally authoritarian. Many are just social dominance oriented: They object to authority that isn't them/ideologically acceptable to them.

Wow, what a terminally trite statement.

And yet true. What else can you say when the largest group of "anti-authoritarians" are fanatical about expanding the organs of state violence to unlimited extents? What about that says anything but "authoritarian as long as I'm in charge" to you?

In anticipation of America getting poorer, the wealthy are buying the government so that society is reorganized to ensure that loss of wealth only affects those who cannot afford to buy government.

As this proceeds, it becomes inconvenient for the masses to feel entitled to freedom and self-determination, or to expect government to be responsive to their rights and needs. We need to be conditioned to accept powerlessness.

The people at the top see life as a game in its final season and they're ready to move on to the playoffs. That means it's time to eliminate everyone else from the game.